Departmental Written Questions

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what methodology his Department used to determine whether answers to questions in the formulation if he will set out with statistical information related as directly as possible to the tabling hon. Member's constituency the effects on that constituency of his Department's policies since 1997 could be provided without incurring disproportionate cost; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: When deciding whether a response to a parliamentary question is likely to incur disproportionate cost my staff consult the relevant Cabinet Office guidance, paragraphs 7.26 - 7.31.

Departmental Written Questions

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what methodology his Department used to determine whether answers to questions in the formulation if he will set out with statistical information related as directly as possible to the tabling hon. Members' constituency the effects on that constituency of his Department's policies since 1997 could be provided without incurring disproportionate cost; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) seeks to answer all parliamentary questions that do not incur disproportionate cost. Disproportionate cost is determined via a disproportionate cost threshold (DCT). The current DCT is £800, announced in Parliament by the Treasury on 20 January 2010,  Official Report, column 15WS.

Armed Forces: Housing

John Howell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many complaints have been received by MODern Housing Solutions in respect of its work at RAF Benson in each of the last 24 months;
	(2)  what performance indicators have been set for MODern Housing Solutions in respect of its work on defence properties; and what assessment his Department has made of its performance against these targets in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what assessment has been made of the performance of MODern Housing Solutions in relation to its work at RAF Benson in the last 12 months.

Kevan Jones: Modern Housing Solutions (MHS) undertake a wide variety of repair and maintenance work on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MOD). Key performance indicators relate to agreed contractual timescales for repairs. MHS are required to attend all emergency repairs within three hours and to make safe within 24 hours, to attend all urgent repairs within five working days and all routine repairs within 20 working days.
	MHS regularly publish details of their performance against these and other targets on their website under 'Progress Info for Occupants':
	www.modernhousingsolutions.com
	In addition, MOD staff in Defence Estate, MHS and Station representatives meet at RAF Benson on a regular basis to review overall performance and any issues or areas, concerns or problems with specific locations would be discussed at that time.
	While MHS record all complaints received, a breakdown by location cannot be readily identified from the overall data.

Armed Forces: Pensions

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the applicability of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 to widows who remarry and are subsequently divorced  (a) under Scottish law and  (b) in the rest of the UK.

Kevan Jones: The applicability of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 to widows who remarry, and are subsequently divorced does not differentiate between Scottish law and the rest of the United Kingdom.
	In order for an earlier pension, that has ceased due to remarriage, to restart the separation must be recognised in legal terms as divorced, dissolved or widowed and those administering the scheme with the authority of the Defence Council must be satisfied that the pension should become payable to the beneficiary for reasons of hardship.

Cluster Munitions

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what US cluster munitions are stored at US bases in the UK.

Bill Rammell: The United States stores various weapons in the UK. The US inventory of weapons is declared annually to the Ministry of Defence who ensure that all weapons are appropriately licensed and stored. It would be inappropriate to disclose the numbers, types and locations of such weapons. Therefore, I am withholding the detailed information as its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and another state.
	However, I can confirm that the US has identified their cluster munitions on UK territory as exceeding their worldwide operational planning requirements. Therefore, these cluster munitions will be removed from sites in the UK in 2010 and from all UK territories by 2013 (as declared by Baroness Kinnock during the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill Second Reading in the House of Lords on 8 December 2009,  Official Report, column 1020.

Gurkhas: Immigration

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  which Gurkha veterans' charities his Department has met to discuss implementation of the Government's policy on the settlement of ex-Gurkhas;
	(2)  which Gurkha charities have received funding from his Department following the decision to grant ex-Gurkhas UK settlement rights; and how much such funding each of those charities has received.

Kevan Jones: The Ministry of Defence has met with a number of service charities to discuss the mechanisms put in place to support those Gurkha veterans and their dependants who decide to come to settle in the UK under the new immigration rules. These meetings included the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which is the only charity established specifically for the relief of poverty and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen of the British Crown and their dependants in Nepal. The Ministry of Defence has provided an annual grant to the Gurkha Welfare Trust since it was established in 1969. This grant, which currently amounts to just over one million pounds per year, contributes towards the administrative costs of the trust's field arm operating in Nepal, the Gurkha Welfare Scheme.

Departmental Translation Services

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on translation services by her Department in  (a) Ribble Valley,  (b) Lancashire and  (c) the UK in each of the last five years.

Jonathan R Shaw: The DWP provides a range of language translation services for customers across Great Britain (as Northern Ireland is excluded), namely:
	1. Face to face.
	2. Telephone.
	3. Translating by a range of services which includes the translation of departmental information leaflets and other documents that are provided to customers in a range of ethnic languages, audio and Braille, as well as all publications for Welsh-speaking customers living in Wales.
	4. We are also able to offer an ad-hoc service to convert documents into Easy Read format. Spend for Easy Read has in the past been included within other category spend and so cannot be identified without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The contractual arrangements for the services have been developed over a number of years and as a result spend has not been applicable for some of these services in each of the last five years or data has not been able to be gathered for spend during some years. Disproportionate cost would be incurred in trying to identify such spend.
	We are unable to identify spend for specific geographic areas, such as the Ribble Valley and Lancashire, without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The total spend information is given in the following table:
	
		
			  £ 
			  Type of translation service  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08  2008-09 
			 Face to face and telephone 2,967,756 3,443,334 4,496,008 3,515,722 3,761,765 
			 Ethnic document translation n/a 120,720 267,500 134,945 (1)459,554 
			 Welsh 30,855 20,766 50,759 65,789 66,755 
			 Braille n/a n/a n/a 45,309 59,522 
			 Audio n/a n/a n/a 35,572 33,397 
			 Easy Read n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Total 2,998,611 3,584,820 4,814,267 3,797,337 4,380,993 
			 n/a = not available without incurring disproportionate cost as data not held centrally or is combined within other category data and not possible to separate.  (1) This figure includes all translation spend for the International Pensions Centre (IPC) which previously was not held centrally-total £381,370.59 for 2008-09.

Equality Bill

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what representations she has received on the ways in which the provisions of the Equality Bill affect the rights of the individual in respect of freedom of religion.

Michael Jabez Foster: My officials, colleagues and I have received a number of representations on a range of issues from both individuals and religion and belief organisations since the introduction of the Equality Bill in April last year.
	The main issues raised were:
	whether the Bill curbed religious freedom of expression;
	restriction of freedom of conscience;
	a perceived hierarchy of rights where some protected characteristics take precedence over the rights of the religious;
	catholic adoption agencies;
	the occupational requirement employment exception for organised religion; and
	faith-based care homes.
	Such discussions and representations are ongoing as it is always important for Government to maintain a dialogue.

International Women's Day

Anne Main: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what plans the Government has to mark International Women's Day.

Maria Eagle: The Government are marking International Women's Day in a number of ways:
	a breakfast meeting at No. 10 with women executives on 8 March;
	a Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar Reception (10 March); and
	a Parliamentary topical debate marking International Women's day in the House of Commons on11 March; and
	a reception for International Women's Day at No. 10 hosted by Sarah Brown on 18 March.
	In addition, individual Departments undertook the following to coincide with International Women's Day:
	 The Government Equalities Office published:
	'What the Government has done for women' factsheet;
	'Women's Representation' factsheet:
	Research report and findings on public attitudes to the representation of women in business and Government;
	Government's Response to the Speaker's Conference; and
	Report on the regional 'Women in Focus' events which promoted best practice in diverting women from crime (with Ministry of Justice).
	 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
	Welcomed the appointment of Minister of State, Baroness Kinnock, as Women's Officer. Baroness Kinnock will be responsible for leading the Government's work to tackle violence against women overseas. These are in addition to her responsibilities as Minister of State.
	Published a newly developed poster and leaflet designed to raise awareness of FGM. A new e-mail address has also been set up (fgm@fco.gov.uk) for those who have concerns or questions about FGM to use.
	 The Department for Schools, Children and Families :
	Published the report of the Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Advisory Group and the Government's response, including plans to revise training for new teachers and to include VAWG issues in the PHSE curriculum for 2011.
	 The Home Office:
	Announced that a series of laws to protect vulnerable women by reducing the demand for prostitution, including the police no longer having to show kerb-crawlers are "persistent" before arresting them, will come into effect on 1 April.
	Held an internal ministerial event on delivering the Gender Equality duty with stakeholders.
	 The Department of International Development (DFID):
	Welcomed Andrea Cornwall, Director of the Pathways of Women's Empowerment Research Programme, to DFID to share key research findings. Pathways is an international research and communications programme that links academics, activists and practitioners across the globe to explore ways to enhance women's empowerment.
	Screened video clips giving ground level insights and testimonials from women in Ghana and posted these on the DFID website.
	Ellen Wratten, Director of Policy and Head of Profession for Social Development at DFID, will be giving a presentation at Plan International's celebration in Westminster Hall on 8 March on the new joint DFID/NIKE Foundation 'Girl Hub' programme that focuses on empowering adolescent girls in developing countries.

Members: Correspondence

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Minister for Farming and the Environment will reply to the hon. Member for Billericay's letters of 12 January and 15 February 2010 on his constituent Ms F Smith.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I replied to both of the hon. Member's letters on 23 March and I apologise for the intervening delay.

River Thames: Angling

Michael Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what evidence the decision was taken to restrict the eel-fishing season in the Thames; and if he will place in the Library a copy of that evidence.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ensure compliance with the European Eel Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007, The Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 (No. 3344) establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel came into force on the 15 January 2010.
	As part of the Eels Regulations, close seasons have been introduced to curtail fishing effort at times of particular pressure on the stock: 26 May 2010 to 14 February 2011 for eels 12 centimetres or less, and 1 October 2010 to 31 March 2011 for all other eels.
	The 2010 close seasons were set nationally and coincide with peak runs for elvers and with the main silver eel net fishing season. The close seasons will be in force for one year to provide time to assess stocks in each river basin.
	In 2011, both adult eel and elver close seasons will be set through Environment Agency (EA) byelaws and will be specific to individual river basins to match local circumstances. The EA met with representatives of Thames eel fishermen in January this year to discuss the revision of byelaws.
	A copy of the Statutory Instrument together with the Explanatory Memorandum, which provides information to support the measures introduced through the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, has been placed in the Library.

Carbon Emissions: Housing

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will take steps to ensure that energy efficiency services provided by energy suppliers under the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target scheme are monitored to ensure maximum  (a) cost effectiveness and  (b) energy efficiency.

Joan Ruddock: An independent assessment is commissioned at the end of each three year phase of the Supplier Obligation (now termed the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target), building on the cost-benefit assessment undertaken and published at the launch of each scheme. Independent analysis of the three year supplier obligation scheme ending March 2008 showed it to have been extremely cost effective in delivery-that for every £1 added onto GB household bills to pay for the obligation, benefits equate to an average saving of £9 per household bill over the lifetime of the measures. Equally, the present supplier obligation, the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target which ends in March 2011, is also believed to be highly cost-effective. Annual benefits (net of costs) are expected to be around £649 million for the lifetime of the measures, with around £228 benefits per tonne of carbon dioxide saved in the traded sector and £153 benefits per tonne of CO2 saved in the non-traded sector. Insulation measures make up over 60 per cent. of savings to target-equivalent to some 4 million households receiving insulation measures.

Departmental Theft

Tom Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what steps his Department is taking to deter theft from within the Department.

Joan Ruddock: The Department has building access monitoring and control measures in place in accordance with Cabinet Office policy; requires all staff to wear passes while in the office; issues staff awareness guidance on its intranet; has a clear desk policy in place and provides secure storage for its staff.
	Ongoing security awareness activities are undertaken to ensure that DECC assets and information is handled appropriately and securely.

Railways: Construction

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport for what reasons no environment impact assessment was produced ahead of the consultation on the High Speed Two Exceptional Hardship schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Mole: The proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme sets out proposals to help certain home-owners who may be affected by blight following publication of the Government's response to HS2 Ltd'.s recommendations. The scheme is not a "project" for the purposes of Council Directive 1985/337/EEC on the assessment of effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Accordingly, no environmental impact assessment is required.
	If a decision is taken to proceed with high speed rail, the appropriate environmental assessment would form part of any preparations for the introduction of a Hybrid Bill.

Railways: Construction

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport for what reasons Buckinghamshire county council has not been included on the list of consultees for the consultation on the High Speed Two Exceptional Hardship scheme.

Chris Mole: Buckinghamshire county council is regarded as a consultee. The leader and chief executive were sent copies of all the relevant materials following the Statement on high speed rail by the Secretary for State for Transport. Any individual or organisation can request copies of and respond to the Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation. Copies are available from DFT Publications at
	www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dftps/howtoobtaindftpublications/form
	or telephone 0300 123 1102.

Railways: Construction

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport on what date his Department plans to respond to the participants in the consultation on the High Speed Two Exceptional Hardship Scheme.

Chris Mole: The consultation closes on 20 May 2010. The Government recognise the importance to affected property owners of introducing the scheme, should it decide to do so, as quickly as is practicable. We would expect this to be in June.

Railways: Construction

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what advice he has  (a) sought and  (b) received on the compatibility of the conduct of his Department's High Speed Two Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation with guidance on the conduct of consultations during an election period.

Chris Mole: The Department consulted the HM Government "Code of Practice on Consultation", which recommends that consultations should not generally be launched during election periods. The consultation on the Exceptional Hardship Scheme was launched on 11 March, while Parliament was sitting. The Government recognise the importance to affected property owners of introducing the scheme, should it decide to do so, as quickly as is practicable. The timing of the launch was determined accordingly. In addition, the duration of the consultation was shortened-to 10 weeks instead of the recommended 12-for the same reason.

Roads: Tolls

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport if he will  (a) rule out a national satellite-based road pricing scheme and  (b) end all funding in respect of road pricing and road pricing demonstration projects.

Sadiq Khan: The Government have already ruled out national road pricing in this or the next Parliament. However the Government are contractually committed to funding up to December 2010 the 'Demonstrations' projects that look at the technological, operational and organizational challenges around widespread Time/Distance/Place road pricing. The Government have no plans to undertake further 'Demonstrations' projects.

Stephen Byers

Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport on what dates he discussed matters relating to National Express with the hon. Member for North Tyneside since 1 January 2009.

Chris Mole: My noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis) had a brief conversation in the House of Commons with the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) in June 2009 about the East Coast Main Line. The Secretary of State does not recall the precise date (although it cannot have been before 8 June, his first full week in office).

Stephen Byers

Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of each  (a) email and  (b) letter received by his Department from the hon. Member for North Tyneside on National Express.

Chris Mole: The Department for Transport has not received any emails or letters from the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) about National Express.

Stephen Byers

Dai Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport if he will publish the  (a) correspondence and  (b) notes of discussions between his Department and the right hon. Member for North Tyneside on the operation by National Express of the East Coast Rail subsidiary franchise in 2009.

Chris Mole: The Department for Transport has not received any correspondence from the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) on the operation by National Express of the East Coast Rail subsidiary franchise.
	My noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis) had a brief conversation in the House of Commons with the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) in June 2009 about the East Coast Main Line.
	As this was a conversation in the House of Commons there is no official note. However, the Secretary of State has stated for the record that they discussed the right hon. Member's experience in dealing with rail franchise difficulties when Transport Secretary. As regards the situation then facing National Express the Secretary of State told him that despite the company's difficulties he had no intention whatsoever of renegotiating the East Coast franchise on terms favourable to the company, as the company was seeking in its approaches to the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State also told the right hon. Member that in his view such a move would undermine the rail franchise system and would not be in the best interests of tax payers.

Stephen Byers

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport on what date in June 2009 the Secretary of State was approached by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside on the issue of penalties to be levied against National Express; who first raised the issue; what record was made of the approach; and on what date the Permanent Secretary of his Department was informed that the meeting had taken place.

Chris Mole: At the instigation of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis) had a brief conversation with him about the East Coast Main Line in the House of Commons in June 2009. The Secretary of State does not recall the precise date (although this cannot have been before 8 June, his first full week in office), and as this was a conversation in the House of Commons there is no official note.
	However, the Secretary of State has stated for the record that they discussed the right hon. Member's experience in dealing with rail franchise difficulties when Transport Secretary. As regards the situation then facing National Express, the Secretary of State told him that despite the company's difficulties he had no intention whatsoever of renegotiating the East Coast franchise on terms favourable to the company, as the company was seeking in its approaches to the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State also told the right hon. Member that in his view such a move would undermine the rail franchise system and would not be in the best interests of tax payers.
	The Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport was informed of the conversation shortly after it took place.

Arrest Warrants: War Crimes

Phyllis Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2010,  Official Report, column 1012W, on arrest warrants: war crimes, on what date the paper Arrest warrants - universal jurisdiction was placed on his Department's website;
	(2)  if he will list all the interested individuals and organisations to which a copy of the paper was sent.

Claire Ward: The paper 'Arrest Warrants - Universal Jurisdiction' was placed on the Ministry of Justice website on 17 March. It has been sent to the District Bench (Magistrates' Courts) Legal Committee and to the Jewish Leadership Council, as well as to the persons and bodies listed in my answer of 18 March 2010.

Departmental Written Questions

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what methodology his Department used to determine whether answers to questions in the formulation if he will set out with statistical information related as directly as possible to the tabling hon. Member's constituency the effects on that constituency of his Department's policies since 1997 could be provided without incurring disproportionate cost; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Wills: In all answers to questions formulated as identified, data were provided at a geographical level most closely relevant to the constituency of the MP asking the question, taking into account the cost limit for extraction of data.

Prisoners: Per Capita Costs

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what methodology is used to estimate the average cost of a prison place; and whether the costs of  (a) administration of the National Offender Management Service national and regional structures,  (b) prisoner health care,  (c) education services,  (d) drug services,  (e) dog handling and  (f) Prison Service administration are taken into account in determining the average cost of a prison place.

Maria Eagle: The average cost of a prison place comprises the expenditure on public and private prisons (as recorded in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Agency Annual Report and Accounts), increased by an apportionment of relevant costs borne centrally and in the regions by NOMS. This involves some estimation. In addition, expenditure met centrally by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is included. The figures do not include the cost of prisoners held in police or court cells under Operation Safeguard, nor expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. health and education). The prisoner escort service costs are included. Where the costs of young people are recharged by NOMS to the YJB, expenditure is shown gross and not reduced by income from the YJB.
	For 2008-09 the overall cost of a prison place was £45,000 (to nearest £1,000). This includes expenditure met by NOMS national and regional structures, including Prison Service administration, and the YJB. It does not include expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. for health and education).
	In general health care and education costs are not included. Where prisons have been contracted out to the private sector the cost to NOMS includes health care and this is included in the cost per place above. In general prisoner education are not included. In general clinical drug addiction services are not included. Services which are the responsibility of NOMS (e.g. drug testing, accredited drug treatment programmes and Counselling, Assessment, Referral advice and Throughcare services) are included. Dog handling costs are included.
	Before 2008-09, Her Majesty's Prison Service annual report and accounts included the direct prison cost per place. This included only the expenditure met and managed locally at each prison and excluded expenditure met at area, region or national level. The reported figures included expenditure on health care and education which was recharged to the other Government Departments. It did not include that expenditure met directly by other Government Departments.
	Cost per prison place is expressed in terms of the Certified Normal Accommodation number of places; this gives a higher unit cost than the cost per prisoner.

Youth Custody

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were held in each  (a) secure children's home,  (b) secure training centre and  (c) young offender institution in each year from 2002 to 2009; and what proportion of these such people were aged (i) 12, (ii) 13, (iii) 14, (iv) 15, (v) 16, (vi) 17, (vii) 18 and (viii) 19 years old at the time at which they were first detained.

Maria Eagle: Table 1 details the number of young people aged 12 to 17 held in each secure children's home, secure training centre and young offender institution on 30 June in each year from 2002 to 2009. Information on the young people's ages at the time they were first detained is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	These data have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board and have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. Differences in counting rules may mean that figures from other databases are not directly comparable.
	Apart from those completing juvenile sentences, young people aged 18 and 19 who are sent to custody are accommodated in the young adult (18 to 20) estate. Table 2 shows the total number of young people in custody aged 18 and 19 on 30 June each year from 2002 to 2009.
	Information on the population of individual young adult establishments and on the age of the young people at the time they were first detained is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	These data have been supplied by Justice Statistics Analytical Services and have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. Differences in counting rules may mean that figures from other databases are not directly comparable.
	
		
			  Table 1: Number of 12 to 17-year- olds in custody, as at 30 June: 2002 - 09 
			  Accommodation type  Establishment  Age  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009 
			  Secure children's homes Aldine House 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 
			   13 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 
			   14 0 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 
			   15 2 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 
			   16 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Atkinson Unit 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 
			   14 8 3 2 5 2 4 2 0 
			   15 2 3 3 2 2 1 6 0 
			   16 2 6 2 2 3 3 0 2 
			   17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Aycliffe Young People's Centre 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 
			   13 3 4 6 1 1 3 5 3 
			   14 11 10 8 8 9 8 7 11 
			   15 10 10 8 10 5 9 8 6 
			   16 6 7 11 9 5 8 4 5 
			   17 3 2 1 2 5 1 1 0 
			
			  Barton Moss Secure Unit 12 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 
			   13 3 0 5 2 2 3 6 4 
			   14 10 11 5 9 8 7 6 8 
			   15 2 7 6 5 7 1 4 5 
			   16 2 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 
			   17 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 
			
			  Briars Hey 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Clare Lodge 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Clayfields House 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 2 0 0 4 3 3 1 2 
			   14 4 5 5 3 5 4 6 5 
			   15 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 3 
			   16 2 5 3 2 1 0 2 2 
			   17 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 
			
			  Dales House 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Earlswood Secure Unit 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  East Moor 12 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 
			   13 4 2 4 7 5 4 6 4 
			   14 22 11 11 15 17 17 18 14 
			   15 5 13 12 7 5 7 6 9 
			   16 1 5 4 6 5 3 2 4 
			   17 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
			
			  Gladstone House 12 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 
			   13 1 4 2 2 4 3 0 0 
			   14 3 3 8 4 7 3 0 0 
			   15 3 4 4 4 2 3 0 0 
			   16 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 
			   17 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 
			
			  Hillside 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 2 
			   14 4 1 3 5 4 5 5 2 
			   15 5 3 3 6 4 3 4 6 
			   16 3 6 6 2 4 4 1 5 
			   17 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 
			
			  Kyloe House 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   13 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
			   14 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 
			   15 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 
			   16 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 
			   17 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 
			
			  Leverton Secure Unit 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Lincolnshire Secure Unit 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 
			   13 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 
			   14 3 1 1 0 3 3 2 3 
			   15 0 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 
			   16 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 
			
			  Market Street 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Orchard Lodge 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 
			   13 1 1 1 4 1 5 0 0 
			   14 3 8 8 6 8 7 7 1 
			   15 6 6 7 6 6 3 6 3 
			   16 3 5 2 0 2 3 4 1 
			   17 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 
			
			  Red Bank Community Home 12 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 
			   13 3 3 3 1 0 3 5 1 
			   14 8 14 8 13 13 6 8 6 
			   15 8 7 12 9 4 9 9 9 
			   16 5 2 2 2 8 5 6 9 
			   17 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 
			
			  Redsands Secure Unit 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  St. Catherines Centre for Girls 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  St. John's Centre (Tiffield) 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Sutton Place 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 
			   13 4 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 
			   14 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 0 
			   15 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 
			   16 0 3 1 2 2 3 2 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Stamford House 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Stoke House 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Swanwick Lodge 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 
			   13 5 3 2 3 2 3 1 0 
			   14 1 5 3 4 2 3 8 4 
			   15 1 0 4 1 2 1 1 3 
			   16 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Thornbury House 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Vinney Green 12 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 
			   13 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 0 
			   14 4 5 7 8 8 5 10 8 
			   15 5 7 5 1 4 8 4 3 
			   16 8 6 4 6 4 4 3 6 
			   17 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 
			
			  Watling House 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Secure Training Centres Hassockfield STC 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 5 5 6 3 0 0 0 0 
			   14 21 13 10 8 12 23 16 9 
			   15 10 13 15 12 16 19 22 8 
			   16 1 9 4 11 10 14 14 13 
			   17 0 1 1 1 0 2 4 2 
			
			  Medway 12 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 
			   13 3 6 5 3 1 1 2 5 
			   14 14 25 17 17 21 21 17 13 
			   15 17 18 25 23 16 17 25 27 
			   16 6 14 23 22 20 22 18 17 
			   17 1 2 1 2 6 4 14 5 
			
			  Oakhill STC 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 
			   14 0 0 1 14 17 15 15 23 
			   15 0 0 0 23 20 22 8 30 
			   16 0 0 0 25 28 18 17 19 
			   17 0 0 0 1 7 2 0 4 
			
			  Rainsbrook 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 8 7 6 3 2 0 0 3 
			   14 28 24 20 22 22 19 20 10 
			   15 13 23 27 23 19 20 25 27 
			   16 7 22 12 24 26 32 27 36 
			   17 0 0 5 4 3 11 12 5 
			
			  Young Offender Institutions Ashfield 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 
			   15 28 16 28 23 31 47 40 24 
			   16 79 50 79 77 91 96 113 76 
			   17 119 98 150 174 177 194 205 215 
			
			  Aylesbury 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 
			
			  Brinsford 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 23 24 26 20 18 18 6 7 
			   16 59 50 67 63 63 49 40 18 
			   17 93 97 92 88 112 78 69 60 
			
			  Brockhill 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Bullwood Hall 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 27 15 20 16 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Castington 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 15 18 21 8 16 10 16 11 
			   16 61 39 33 47 34 46 45 27 
			   17 95 86 82 70 77 77 95 87 
			
			  Cookham Wood 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 22 
			   17 0 0 0 0 14 11 23 54 
			
			  Downview 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 11 15 13 14 15 
			
			  Eastwood Park 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 6 7 7 10 18 13 18 14 
			
			  Feltham 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 41 31 30 30 24 28 24 30 
			   16 75 83 76 61 74 59 63 61 
			   17 198 166 150 137 131 135 147 129 
			
			  Foston Hall 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 9 
			
			  Hindley 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 29 17 19 14 22 11 31 35 
			   16 63 57 34 44 52 47 57 82 
			   17 83 94 98 90 76 85 101 156 
			
			  Holloway 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 8 11 8 0 1 0 0 0 
			
			  Huntercombe 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 36 18 27 30 38 30 40 20 
			   16 83 77 92 83 96 109 98 69 
			   17 143 127 175 172 180 165 181 147 
			
			  Lancaster Farms 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 26 20 25 32 41 25 29 0 
			   16 51 41 51 65 67 74 65 0 
			   17 113 106 107 111 116 119 132 0 
			
			  Low Newton 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  New Hall 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 15 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 
			   17 23 34 39 34 23 20 25 21 
			
			  Onley 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 20 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 62 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 121 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Parc 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 1 2 1 1 6 6 2 8 
			   16 4 3 4 2 10 10 22 17 
			   17 9 14 13 13 16 35 40 38 
			
			  Portland 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Stoke Heath 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 18 10 21 21 25 25 20 13 
			   16 55 35 45 39 62 46 61 26 
			   17 101 64 107 113 90 108 118 78 
			
			  Styal 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Swinfen Hall 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			
			  Thorn Cross 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 
			   16 6 10 13 8 10 6 0 0 
			   17 21 17 16 16 4 13 1 0 
			
			  Warren Hill 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 9 20 24 23 23 20 23 20 
			   16 53 53 51 58 61 51 68 55 
			   17 100 87 108 106 109 115 112 106 
			
			  Werrington 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 16 11 13 24 15 18 15 11 
			   16 37 22 42 42 46 39 40 45 
			   17 68 59 60 63 70 63 61 74 
			
			  Wetherby 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 46 27 46 33 38 40 46 29 
			   16 85 96 76 105 77 93 93 125 
			   17 169 169 133 162 169 172 176 189 
			
			  Woodhill 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   16 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 
			   17 0 0 3 4 4 1 1 0 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Number of young people aged 18 and 19 in custody, as at 30 June :  2002 - 09 
			  Age  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009 
			 18 2,161 2,069 2,067 2,070 2,159 2,249 2,170 2,215 
			 19 2,841 2,692 2,640 2,748 2,841 3,104 3,221 3,160

Radio Frequencies

John Mann: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if his Department will take steps to protect the high frequency spectrum for use in long-range communications from power line technology devices.

Stephen Timms: The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) are aware of this long-standing area of concern. Ofcom is responsible for the UK management of the radio spectrum. Ofcom has commissioned an independent study into the likelihood and extent of radio frequency interference caused by Power Line Technology apparatus. This study is virtually complete and is expected to be published next month. BIS and Ofcom will then review any action that might be necessary based on this report.

Government Office for London: Expenditure

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the programme expenditure of the Government Office for London was in each year since 1996-97.

Rosie Winterton: he information requested is set out in the following table:
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Allocations/ delegations issued to GOL  European Programmes  Grants to GLA  Total 
			 1998-99 - - - l,440 
			 1999-00 - - - 2,202 
			 2000-01 - - - l,605 
			 2001-02 - - - 2,094 
			 2002-03 - - - 2,530 
			 2003-04 - - - 2,724 
			 2004-05 - - - 3,323 
			 2005-06 211 105 2,218 2,534 
			 2006-07 193 92 2,428 2,713 
			 2007-08 108 66 2,559 2,732 
			 2008-09 29 72 48 148 
			 2009-10 20 0 48 68 
			  Notes: 1 We do not hold figures for 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 and do not have a breakdown of expenditure prior to 2005-06. 2. Since 2008-09, funding for the Greater London Authority for TfL and the LDA, which GOL had administered since 2000, is now directly administered by DFT and BIS. 3. From 2009-10 responsibility for European Programmes was transferred to the Greater London Authority. 4. The figures for 2009-10 are allocations rather than expenditure. 5. All figures are rounded.

Building Schools for the Future Programme

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what methodology is used in the Building Schools for the Future programme to  (a) determine whether value for money will be achieved in the selection of suppliers and  (b) evaluate whether value for money has been achieved in the work undertaken by suppliers.

Vernon Coaker: In accordance with the requirements of the European procurement regime, bidders are selected on the basis of the "most economically advantageous tender". This means that the value for money of the bidders' proposals are tested in a confidential competitive environment and evaluated in terms of both price and quality against the local authority's requirements. There is a number of different approaches to project delivery available for Building Schools for the Future, the preferred approaches being to use a Local Education Partnership (LEP) or to use the Contractor Framework managed by Partnerships for Schools on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. When either approach is being used, the contractual arrangements between the parties require that value for money is demonstrated and that key performance indicators and continuous improvement commitments are met.
	Once a supplier is selected, the authority monitors the work undertaken (or arranges for the work to be monitored) to ensure compliance with the contractual requirements upon which the price is based.

Children in Care: Child Trust Fund

Ruth Kelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities  (a) ensure that the full £100 Child Trust Fund annual payments for looked-after children are put in their individual account and  (b) have used all or part of these payments for other purposes.

Dawn Primarolo: holding answer 17 March 2010
	Information about annual £100 Child Trust Fund top-up payments made by local authorities to the accounts of individual looked after children who are eligible is not collected centrally. Statutory guidance:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguarding andsocialcare/childrenincare/childtrustfund/childtrustfund/ (1)
	on arrangements for the payment of Child Trust Funds was issued to local authorities in England under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 which they must act under when performing their duties under section 22(3)(a) (duty to promote the welfare of a looked after child) of the Children Act 1989. The devolved administrations have also put guidance on the payment of Child Trust Funds in place.
	(1) Child Trust Fund Account Top Up Payments For Looked After Children: Statutory Guidance on Local Authority Practice in England.

Children: Language Difficulties

Lembit �pik: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his policy is on the provision of early-stage learning facilities and support for children with language difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: Following the Bercow review of services for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), the Government published Better Communication: An action plan to improve services for children and young people with SLCN, backed by £12 million investment. As part of the action plan, we-together with the department for Health are piloting good practice in commissioning SLCN services in 16 areas in order to develop a national framework to improve the way services are delivered for children across the country.
	In the Early Years, we have taken substantial steps to improve the quality of early learning and care including the introduction of the Early Years Foundation Stage which sets the standards for supporting children's early learning and care from birth to five. Alongside the EYFS we are investing in the work force, including targeted programmes like Every Child a Talker (ECaT) designed to improve children's early language development through professional development for practitioners. ECaT was launched with a first wave of local authorities in 2008. It has promoted cooperation between local services, especially between Speech and Language services and early learning and care, to support children experiencing and at risk of language delay. From April 2010, all local authorities in England will have been funded to run the programme.

Children's Centres

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his most recent assessment is of the contribution of Sure Start children's centres to the objectives of his Department.

Dawn Primarolo: holding answer 22 March 2010
	Sure Start Children's Centres are becoming a universal service-on 16 March, the Prime Minster announced that the Government had met their target for 3,500 Sure Start Children's Centres in England. Children's Centres provide access to integrated services for young children and their families. They contribute to all Every Child Matter outcomes and a number of my Department's Strategic Objectives, in particular: secure the wellbeing and health of children and young people; achieve world class standards in education; and close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
	The National Evaluation of Sure Start, which has been under way since 2001, is comparing the development of children living in areas with children's centres originally established as Sure Start Local Programmes with children living in other areas. Its most recent report published in 2008 provides evidence of improved outcomes for children and families living in early Sure Start areas. Families living in early Sure Start areas used more child- and family-related services than those living elsewhere. The reported benefits appeared to apply to all social groups, including those facing most disadvantages.
	The National Evaluation showed that children behave better and are more independent if they live in early Sure Start areas. Parents have more positive parenting skills and provide a better home learning environment for their children, helping prepare children to do well at school and make the most of their talents.
	The 2008 Foundation Stage Profile results show that 21,000 more five-year-olds are achieving a good level of development across a range of areas of learning and at the same time gaps have narrowed-lowest achieving children and children from disadvantaged areas are starting to catch up. These results suggest that our reforms and investment in the early years-including through Sure Start-are starting to have an impact on all children, and in narrowing gaps.
	The latest report from the National Evaluation of Sure Start indicated that young children living in the early Sure Start areas were more likely to have received the recommended immunisations and less likely to have had an accident resulting in injury.
	The Department's research on the use of children's centres, carried out by Taylor Nelson Sofres, entailed interviews with parents and carers of young children during 2008. The report in 2009 indicated that 78 per cent. of respondents knew about their local centre, and 92 per cent. who had used their local centre were satisfied with the service they received. The report also showed high levels of satisfaction with individual services provided through children's centres such as child care, nursery education, health, and family and parenting services.

Children's Centres: Greater Manchester

Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children in  (a) the City of Manchester and  (b) Manchester Central constituency attend Sure Start centres.

Dawn Primarolo: holding answer 1 March 2010
	 The 40 designated Sure Start Children's Centres in the city of Manchester local authority have a combined reach of over 35,000 children under five and their families. The 12 centres in Manchester, Central constituency have a combined reach of over 9,000 children under five and their families. Reach area defines those children and families with the opportunity to access children's centres. Figures for the number of children under five and their families actually attending and using children's centres are not collected centrally.

Departmental Audit

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether his Department has updated its Allegations Audit, undertaken in 2003-04.

Dawn Primarolo: Similar data to that collected in the 2003-04 Allegations Audit was collected in 2004-05, and less detailed data on allegations was collected in 2007. The data collected in 2004-05 was used to inform the development of guidance on handling allegations of abuse made against those who work with children and young people, but was not published as a data set. The data collected in 2007 was used to inform the review of implementation of guidance on handling allegations. The analysis of this data was included within the report of the review published in May 2009 and is available to download from the Every Child Matters website.

Departmental Marketing

Robert Syms: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip Northwood of 5 January 2010,  Official Report, column 103W, on departmental marketing, how much his Department and agencies have spent on advertising, marketing, public relations and publicity in relation to the  (a) Real Help Now and  (b) Building Britain's Future themed campaign to date.

Diana Johnson: The Department did not undertake any work on the two campaigns in 2008/09. Expenditure on the campaigns in 2009/10 is not currently available.

GCSE: Truancy

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many pupils classified as persistent truants gained five GCSEs at A*-C including English and mathematics in the latest year for which figures are available.

Vernon Coaker: Latest data which matches absence with attainment data is available for 2008 and relates to persistent absentees rather than 'truants'.
	In 2008, 7.2 per cent. of persistent absentees in state funded secondary schools attained five or more GCSEs at grade A*-C or the equivalent, including GCSEs in English and mathematics. In 2007 this figure was lower with 6.4 per cent. of persistent absentees attaining five or more GCSEs at grade A*-C or the equivalent, including GCSEs in English and mathematics in state funded secondary schools.
	The available information relates to persistent absentees, who are defined as pupils missing approximately 20 per cent. of possible sessions for the relevant statistical reporting period. On an annual basis this threshold is 64 or more sessions of absence, (authorised or unauthorised) during the year. (On a two term, autumn and spring basis, the threshold is typically 52 sessions). Unauthorised absence is defined as absence without leave from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy.

Pre-school Education

Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many two year-olds he expects to have participated in free early years pre-school entitlement by 2016.

Dawn Primarolo: holding answer 24 February 2010
	 By the end of March 2010 it is expected some 20,000 two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will have access to a free early learning and child care place each year.
	We will continue to make progress on the long-term ambition that the Prime Minister has set out to provide free part-time nursery places for all two-year-olds whose parents want them.
	Decisions regarding the pace of future rollout will need to be taken in the light of wider fiscal considerations as part of the next spending review.

Pre-school Education: Northampton

Sally Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many nursery places there were for children in Northampton in  (a) 1997,  (b) 2001,  (c) 2005 and  (d) 2010.

Dawn Primarolo: Table 1 shows the number of part-time equivalent places filled by three and four-year-olds in Northamptonshire local authority in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2009. Data for 2010 is not yet available and will be published in the summer, so 2009 has been provided instead.
	Data on the number of places available is not collected; only data on the number of places filled is available as children can access their free entitlement across different local authorities.
	Part-time equivalent places are derived by counting children taking up 12 and a half hours per week as one place, 10 hours per week as 0.8 places, seven and a half hours per week as 0.6 places, five hours per week as 0.4 places and two and a half hours per week as 0.2 places.
	
		
			  Table 1: Part-time equivalent number of free early education places( 1,)( )( 2,)( )( 3)  filled by three and four-year-olds( 4) , local authority: Northamptonshire, position in January each year 
			   Number of places 
			 1997 9,700 
			 2001 11,000 
			 2005 14,000 
			 2009 15,100 
			 (1) A place is equal to 12.5 hours (five sessions) and can be filled by more than one child.  (2) Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.  (3) Prior to 2004, information on early education places was derived from returns made by local authorities as part of the nursery education grant (NEG) data collection exercise. From 2004 onwards, information has been derived from Early Years Census and School Census data.  (4) Age of all children taken at 31 December in the previous calendar year.   Source:  Early Years Census and School Census. 
		
	
	The Department publishes information on the part-time equivalent number of free early education places filled by three and four-year-olds in maintained, private, voluntary and independent providers available at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000848/index.shtml

Primary Education

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 11 January 2010,  Official Report, columns 726-27W, on primary education, how the information included in the answer was compiled.

Vernon Coaker: Information included in the answer of 11 January 2010,  Official Report, columns 726-27W, was derived from new analysis of pupil attendance data submitted as part of the School Census. Attendance records are returned for each period of time spent in a relevant school in a school year.
	Previous questions on this subject have not been answered substantively because an appropriate methodology had not been developed and to do so would have incurred disproportionate cost. However, a methodology has since been developed, based on pupil attendance data, that can be used to answer this type of question.

Schools: Admissions

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families 
	(1)  how many surplus places there are in  (a) primary and  (b) secondary schools in each local authority;
	(2)  which local authorities which have over  (a) 10 per cent. and  (b) 25 per cent. surplus school places;
	(3)  which schools have surplus places; and how many surplus places each has.

Vernon Coaker: The Department collects information from each local authority on the number of surplus places through an annual survey. The most recent published data relates to the position at January 2009 and shows the breakdown of surplus places by local authority in primary and secondary schools. The data is available at:
	http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/tsp/primarytoolkit/context/data
	As requested, a copy of the data has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	A table showing the number of local authorities with a percentage of surplus places of 10 or above at primary level and those with a percentage of surplus of 10 or above at secondary level has also been placed in the Libraries. There are no local authorities with 25 per cent. or more surplus school places.

Sixth Form Education: Admissions

Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many surplus places there were in school sixth forms in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Vernon Coaker: The Department collects information from each local authority on the number of primary and secondary surplus school places via an annual survey.
	The number of surplus places is not broken down into year groups. Local authorities provide the number of places (net capacity) for each secondary school as a whole; school sixth forms are not reported on separately because much of the space in secondary schools is shared between sixth form and other pupils.
	The following table shows the number of surplus places in maintained secondary schools between 2005 and 2009 which is the most recent data available.
	
		
			   Secondary surplus places( 1)  Surplus as a percentage of total secondary places 
			 2009 309,712 9 
			 2008 298,859 9 
			 2007 271,175 8 
			 2006 244,111 7 
			 2005 227,168 7 
			 (1) Number of places relate to position as at January  Source: Surplus Places Survey

Teachers: Males

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families 
	(1)  pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2009,  Official Report, column 707W, on teachers: males, if he will provide the figures for each local authority;
	(2)  pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2009,  Official Report, column 708W, on teachers: males; how many  (a) nursery and primary and  (b) secondary schools with no male teachers there were in each local authority area.

Vernon Coaker: holding answer 24 February 2010
	The School Census reports only two local authority maintained secondary schools (one in Bradford local authority and one in Hackney local authority) that did not have a male teacher in service in January 2009. Both of these are girls schools with a religious character. The following table provides similar numbers for local authority maintained nursery and primary schools:
	
		
			  Local authority maintained nursery and primary schools in each local authority who do not have a male teacher in service, year: January 2009, coverage: England 
			  Number 
			   Schools with no male teacher in service 
			   Nursery  Primary  Nursery and primary 
			  England 386 3,840 4,226 
			 
			 Gateshead 1 13 14 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 6 10 16 
			 North Tyneside 1 9 10 
			 South Tyneside 4 8 12 
			 Sunderland 9 16 25 
			 Hartlepool 1 3 4 
			 Middlesbrough 0 8 8 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 0 8 8 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 0 8 8 
			 Former Durham n/a n/a n/a 
			 Darlington 2 2 4 
			 Durham (post 1 April 1997) 10 65 75 
			 Northumberland 1 71 72 
			  North East 35 221 256 
			 
			 Cumbria 5 99 104 
			 Former Cheshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Cheshire (post 1 April 1998) 1 55 56 
			 Halton 4 11 15 
			 Warrington 1 9 10 
			 Bolton 4 14 18 
			 Bury 1 2 3 
			 Manchester 2 13 15 
			 Oldham 0 18 18 
			 Rochdale 4 9 13 
			 Salford 0 13 13 
			 Stockport 9 18 27 
			 Tameside 0 12 12 
			 Trafford 0 10 10 
			 Wigan 2 16 18 
			 Former Lancashire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Lancashire (post 1 April 1998) 23 103 126 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 9 6 15 
			 Blackpool 0 1 1 
			 Knowsley 0 6 6 
			 Liverpool 4 22 26 
			 St. Helens 1 6 7 
			 Sefton 4 9 13 
			 Wirral 3 12 15 
			  North West 77 464 541 
			 
			 Kingston Upon Hull, City of 2 7 9 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 4 41 45 
			 North East Lincolnshire 2 14 16 
			 North Lincolnshire 0 18 18 
			 North Yorkshire 3 89 92 
			 York 1 2 3 
			 Barnsley 0 20 20 
			 Doncaster 0 17 17 
			 Rotherham 1 23 24 
			 Sheffield 1 17 18 
			 Bradford 5 19 24 
			 Calderdale 0 14 14 
			 Kirklees 2 50 52 
			 Leeds 0 29 29 
			 Wakefield 3 34 37 
			  Yorkshire and The Humber 24 394 418 
			 
			 Former Derbyshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Derbyshire 8 120 128 
			 Derby 8 22 30 
			 Former Leicestershire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Leicestershire (post 1 April 1997) 1 45 46 
			 Leicester 0 13 13 
			 Rutland 0 5 5 
			 Lincolnshire 5 69 74 
			 Northamptonshire 9 64 73 
			 Former Nottinghamshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Nottinghamshire (post 1 April 1998) 2 70 72 
			 Nottingham 1 17 18 
			  East Midlands 34 425 459 
			 
			 Former Hereford and Worcester n/a n/a n/a 
			 Herefordshire 0 14 14 
			 Worcestershire 1 53 54 
			 Former Shropshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Shropshire (post 1 April 1998) 0 51 51 
			 Telford and Wrekin 1 17 18 
			 Former Staffordshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Staffordshire (post 1 April 1998) 5 83 88 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 6 11 17 
			 Warwickshire 7 48 55 
			 Birmingham 20 26 46 
			 Coventry 1 8 9 
			 Dudley 1 6 7 
			 Sandwell 0 12 12 
			 Solihull 0 10 10 
			 Walsall 8 11 19 
			 Wolverhampton 7 10 17 
			  West Midlands 57 360 417 
			 
			 Former Cambridgeshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Cambridgeshire (post 1 April 1998) 6 60 66 
			 Peterborough 1 6 7 
			 Norfolk 3 110 113 
			 Suffolk 1 99 100 
			 Former Bedfordshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Bedfordshire (post 1 April 1997) 7 75 82 
			 Luton 4 13 17 
			 Former Essex n/a n/a n/a 
			 Essex (post 1 April 1998) 1 138 139 
			 Southend-on-Sea 0 5 5 
			 Thurrock 0 12 12 
			 Hertfordshire 15 126 141 
			  East of England 38 644 682 
			 
			  London 63 221 284 
			 
			 Camden 1 7 8 
			 City of London 0 0 0 
			 Hackney 2 4 6 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 2 1 3 
			 Haringey 1 8 9 
			 Islington 0 2 2 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 3 1 4 
			 Lambeth 2 9 11 
			 Lewisham 1 8 9 
			 Newham 5 3 8 
			 Southwark 4 2 6 
			 Tower Hamlets 6 3 9 
			 Wandsworth 3 7 10 
			 Westminster 4 3 7 
			  Inner London 34 58 92 
			 
			 Barking and Dagenham 0 5 5 
			 Barnet 4 15 19 
			 Bexley 0 16 16 
			 Brent 3 4 7 
			 Bromley 0 15 15 
			 Croydon 6 17 23 
			 Ealing 4 7 11 
			 Enfield 0 1 1 
			 Greenwich 4 5 9 
			 Harrow 1 8 9 
			 Havering 0 13 13 
			 Hillingdon 0 10 10 
			 Hounslow 0 7 7 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1 7 8 
			 Merton 0 8 8 
			 Redbridge 0 4 4 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1 7 8 
			 Sutton 2 9 11 
			 Waltham Forest 3 5 8 
			  Outer London 29 163 192 
			 
			 Former Berkshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Bracknell Forest 0 9 9 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 4 15 19 
			 West Berkshire 2 26 28 
			 Reading 5 9 14 
			 Slough 4 4 8 
			 Wokingham 1 14 15 
			 Former Buckinghamshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Buckinghamshire (post 1 April 1997) 1 59 60 
			 Milton Keynes 2 35 37 
			 Former East Sussex n/a n/a n/a 
			 East Sussex (post 1 April 1997) 0 36 36 
			 Brighton and Hove 2 6 8 
			 Former Hampshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Hampshire (post 1 April 1997) 3 132 135 
			 Portsmouth 1 13 14 
			 Southampton 1 14 15 
			 Isle of Wight 0 15 15 
			 Former Kent n/a n/a n/a 
			 Kent (post 1 April 1998) 1 88 89 
			 Medway 0 29 29 
			 Oxfordshire 9 68 77 
			 Surrey 4 127 131 
			 West Sussex 4 53 57 
			  South East 44 752 796 
			 
			 Isles of Scilly 0 0 0 
			 Bath and North East Somerset 0 12 12 
			 Bristol, City of 9 16 25 
			 North Somerset 0 13 13 
			 South Gloucestershire 0 17 17 
			 Cornwall 2 36 38 
			 Former Devon n/a n/a n/a 
			 Devon (post 1 April 1998) 2 52 54 
			 Plymouth 1 4 5 
			 Torbay 0 4 4 
			 Former Dorset n/a n/a n/a 
			 Dorset (post 1 April 1997) 0 29 29 
			 Poole 0 3 3 
			 Bournemouth 0 1 1 
			 Gloucestershire 0 45 45 
			 Somerset 0 65 65 
			 Former Wiltshire n/a n/a n/a 
			 Wiltshire (post 1 April 1997) 0 50 50 
			 Swindon 0 12 12 
			  South West 14 359 373 
			 n/a = not applicable.  Source: School Census.

Teachers: Training

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether he plans to allocate funding for the continuous professional development of teachers for the purposes of implementing the proposals in his Department's White Paper, Your child, your schools, our future.

Vernon Coaker: Schools already receive funding for continuing professional development for the whole school workforce, included within their delegated budgets. However, it is not ring fenced because we believe school leaders are best placed to determine how funding should be allocated based on the needs of individual teachers, identified and agreed through the performance management process, and in the context of the school's own development and improvement priorities.
	Revenue funding per individual pupil has increased by £2,410 (83 per cent.) in real terms between 1997-98 and 2009-10, and therefore we expect that many schools will have increased their spending on CPD for teachers and other staff to reflect that.
	In 2010-11 schools funding will increase by 4.3 per cent. cash per pupil and 2.1 per cent. cash per pupil over 2011-13 at current levels of inflation, after taking account of rising pupil numbers.